JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 165)

>>> "You shock me, DVP. In your laundry list of Newman statements, you left out his testimony in the 86 mock trial, in which he marked a map of Dealey showing the area from which he assumed the shots had been fired." <<<

Pat Speer,

You mean you actually want to BELIEVE something that somebody said at
that mock trial in '86, a trial that virtually all CTers think was
nothing but a "sham" and a "farce"? You shock me, Pat. :)

I'm also a little confused about your post in another sense, Pat --
Was your post about Newman's 1986 map supposed to be a "dig" at me?
I.E., did you think you were actually supporting a "Grassy Knoll"
gunman in your Newman post?

Because if that is what you were attempting to do, you'd better go
back and look at Newman's map again -- because Newman marked that map
in a place where NO conspiracy theorist believes any shots came from.
He marked it in an area that is to the EAST of the pergola that was
behind him when the shooting occurred.

He certainly didn't mark the traditional "picket fence" or "Grassy
Knoll" areas of the Plaza. Not even close. Here is where Newman marked
the map, which is a point in the Plaza that would have been located to
the LEFT-rear (or northeast) of William Newman:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J-9dQKSBxDg/TiQ8lcoouoI/AAAAAAAAc8A/v9sv1iXhi98/s1600/William-Newman-Map-1986-Mock-Trial.png

When all of Bill Newman's testimony and interviews over the years is
assessed, it's pretty obvious that Newman is NOT a really good
"conspiracy" or "Grassy Knoll" witness at all. He heard TWO shots,
both from "directly behind me" (per his 11/22/63 affidavit), and he
admitted in his Oral History interview in Dallas in 2003 that he was
basing his determination about a gunman being "behind" him more on a
VISUAL sense rather than the SOUND of the gunshot(s).

And then we have him marking a map in 1986 that would have a shooter
located near the Elm Street service road at the FAR-EAST side of the
pergola, which isn't even close to the popular Grassy Knoll area.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, love to distort things. And it
appears to me that they've done just that when it comes to the
comments made by William E. Newman. (And Lee Bowers too.)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/william-newman.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 19, 2011, 3:09:48 PM7/19/11

to

>>> "Tomlinson did NOT tell the Commission that the stretcher in the elevator was Connally's." <<<

Of course he didn't. How would Tomlinson know for certain who had
occupied that stretcher last? Connally wasn't lying on the stretcher
when Darrell took it off the elevator. Nobody was lying on it.

But if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399 on ANY stretcher that had come off
of that elevator, then we KNOW that John Connally HAD to have been on
that stretcher very recently--because CE399 came out of a gun that was
being fired at Connally and Kennedy just a short time earlier that
day.

Of course, it's also my opinion that if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399
on ANY STRETCHER AT ALL on Nov. 22 in Parkland Hospital (and he did,
of course), regardless of whether we know with 100% certainty which
stretcher Tomlinson took off the elevator, this HAS to mean (by sheer
logic and common sense) that the stretcher in question HAD to be
Connally's, since only two people on Earth were struck by bullets from
Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63 (not counting James Tague, since
he wasn't taken to Parkland Hospital), and one of those two persons
(JFK) is automatically eliminated in this "stretcher" discussion,
since we know that Kennedy's stretcher was never in that area of
Parkland prior to the bullet being found.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 19, 2011, 4:05:14 PM7/19/11

to

You love to use Bugliosi logic don't you Von Pein...since we know Oswald
shot and killed President Kennedy and Governor Connally, it doesn't
really matter which stretcher it was,and it really doesn't matter that
over 50 witnesses many of them closest to the limo at z313 heard shots
from the knoll/overpass area...maybe that's why Bugliosi's book had
literally zero impact with the public...Laz

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jul 19, 2011, 4:44:08 PM7/19/11

to

In article <6291-4E2...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
says...

And couldn't support it's theory without lying about the evidence...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 20, 2011, 6:41:22 AM7/20/11

to

On Jul 19, 4:05 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> You love to use Bugliosi logic don't you Von Pein...since we know Oswald
> shot and killed President Kennedy and Governor Connally, it doesn't

> really matter which stretcher it was...Laz

That's their use of "circular reasoning".

"Because we know Oswald killed Kennedy"........no evidence to the
contrary is sufficient.

The truth is that ALL FOUR of the witnesses who handled the "stretcher
bullet " before it came into the possession of the FBI COULD NOT
identify CE 399 as being that bullet.

( CE 2011 )

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17951&st=0&gopid=230910&

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 20, 2011, 4:54:03 PM7/20/11

to

>>> "The truth is that ALL FOUR of the witnesses who handled the "stretcher bullet " before it came into the possession of the FBI COULD NOT identify CE 399 as being that bullet." <<<

So, what are you saying here, Gil? Are you implying that the plotters
who were trying to frame Lee Oswald would have wanted to plant a
bullet at Parkland that looked absolutely NOTHING like a Carcano
6.5mm. bullet? Is that correct?

I've said this before, but it deserves repeating (many times) when
these type of topics come up about the JFK assassination:

If things really happened the way a lot of conspiracy theorists think
they did happen on and before 11/22/63, then I think it's fairly safe
to say that the conspirators who were attempting to frame Lee Harvey
Oswald were (as a unit) total morons/idiots/retards. And this topic,
the stretcher bullet, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

I.E.,

Gil Jesus quite obviously believes that CE399 is NOT the "real"
stretcher bullet that was found by Darrell C. Tomlinson prior to 2:00
PM CST on November 22, 1963.

Instead, according to people like Gil and Jim DiEugenio and many other
conspiracists, the actual bullet that Tomlinson found on a Parkland
stretcher was a pointy-nosed bullet. In other words, it looked NOTHING
like a bullet that would have come out of Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle -- which was THE ONE AND ONLY RIFLE that the plotters
used to try and frame their patsy Oswald with in Nov. 1963.

So, this logical question has got to be asked at this point:

WHY would any plotters who were bent on framing ONLY OSWALD (as many/
most Internet conspiracy theorists believe is true) have wanted to
plant a pointy-tipped bullet (or ANY non-Carcano bullet) on a
stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

This is so idiotic and ridiculous, it defies all belief.

The bottom line on this issue is this: The people who failed to say
"Yeah, that's the exact bullet I handled on Nov. 22" just simply could
not say such a definite thing about that bullet. But just because they
failed to POSITIVELY identify the CE399 bullet does not mean that 399
is not the bullet they saw and/or handled on Nov. 22.

And I'll suggest to Josiah Thompson (and others) that Bardwell Odum's
memory could very well have been failing him by the time he was asked
by Thompson and Gary Aguilar in 2001 about whether or not he (Odum)
had shown Tomlinson and O.P. Wright the CE399 bullet at Parkland in
June of '64.

There is also something that Jean Davison mentioned the other day at
the moderated forum. Jean talked about how researcher Ray Marcus said
that he had interviewed Darrell Tomlinson in 1966, with Tomlinson
telling Marcus that he (Tomlinson) was shown CE399 and that it looked
like the same bullet that he had found on the stretcher in 1963.

And, according to what Jean Davison said, Tomlinson also told Marcus
in that same '66 interview that he had found the bullet on a stretcher
that had definitely been taken off of the elevator.

Jean Davison's posts concerning this Marcus/Tomlinson matter are here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4fbf7aa95fa160c2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/da7579aa04945649

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d91e078703be74e5

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/25e4f996b7359c22

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 21, 2011, 1:28:10 PM7/21/11

to

That Bugliosi logic sure pays well though doesn't it? A lotta otherwise
smart and reputable people have sold their soul over this case...Laz

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 21, 2011, 4:26:42 PM7/21/11

to

>>> "A lotta otherwise smart and reputable people have sold their soul over this case." <<<

Who did you have in mind? Jim Garrison maybe? Mr. Lane? Tony Summers?

Jean Hill is probably the best example, however.

Sam McClung

unread,

Jul 21, 2011, 5:00:22 PM7/21/11

to

wrote in message news:894-4E2...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...

That Bugliosi logic sure pays well though doesn't it? A lotta otherwise
smart and reputable people have sold their soul over this case...Laz

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

think some of them might be involved in that concrete owl stuff at bohemian
grove?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 25, 2011, 11:25:35 PM7/25/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0be1130ee9cb7abe

>>> "Josiah Thompson thought there were two head shots." <<<

And Mr. Thompson, like nearly all conspiracy theorists, arrived at
that theory while totally ignoring the best evidence that proves such
a "Two Head Shots" theory is outright nonsense -- the autopsy report.

Question:

Why do conspiracists feel it's perfectly fine and appropriate (and
practically their DUTY) to completely ignore and/or dismiss JFK's
autopsy report (which is a report that was signed by THREE different
doctors)?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

Do CTers like Josiah Thompson REALLY believe that ALL THREE of those
autopsy physicians were rotten, evil liars (or just brainless idiots)
when they signed their names to JFK's official autopsy report, which
is a report that is as clear as day regarding the number of bullets
that entered President Kennedy's body on 11/22/63?

And then ALL THREE of those pathologists decided they would tell lie
after lie about the President's autopsy for the rest of their lives
whenever they discussed the case with reporters or when they gave
testimony to a Governmental investigative organization? (Yeah, right.)

I suppose if we were to just toss aside all of the evidence in the
case (including the autopsy report and the testimony of all three
autopsists), then a case could be made for multiple shooters and two
head shots, even though such a silly action on the part of CTers would
STILL not create the existence of any bullets, guns, shells, or gunmen
that can be used to prop up their make-believe multi-gun conspiracies.

Oh, wait, that's just exactly what conspiracy theorists HAVE done in
the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, isn't it? They've decided that
NONE of the evidence can be trusted. None of it. Therefore, a totally
clean slate must be introduced, after throwing out all of the Oswald-
did-it evidence (including all 12 or so witnesses in Oak Cliff).

It's kind of tough, though, to prove anything when you've started from
scratch -- with NO guns, NO bullets, NO gunmen, NO trustworthy autopsy
report, NO trustworthy FBI reports, and NO trustworthy information at
all coming from ANY of the Government committees who were assigned to
investigate the assassination (WC, HSCA*, Clark Panel, etc.).

* = Except, of course, for the HSCA's Dictabelt garbage, which many
CTers still love to embrace, while dismissing all of the Oswald-did-it
evidence that the HSCA re-examined.

In short -- conspiracy theorists who endorse the "Two Head Shots"
theory (or any other conspiracy theory that ends up with Lee Oswald
being declared innocent) have only one thing going for them:

Their imagination.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/josiah-thompson-interview-december-1967.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 26, 2011, 10:25:49 PM7/26/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0be1130ee9cb7abe/49888b4736fe93a9?#49888b4736fe93a9

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were wrong in both their assessment of the head wound location and back wound location." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never ever stated that the autopsy doctors were wrong about their
placement of the back wound. Where are you coming up with that?
(Surely you're not going to use the "dot" on the Face Sheet, are you?
Because we all know that the detailed measurements in the margin of
the Face Sheet trump that dot.)

The autopsy doctors most certainly did mislocate the exact location of
the head wound. And the red-spot photo proves that fact, IMO.

But this topic was about how conspiracy theorists MUST ignore the
autopsy report with respect to the specific issue of "The Number Of
Bullets That Struck JFK's Head". And that's something the autopsists
got right. So I'm not in disagreement with them on that big-ticket
item at all.

JFK was hit in the head by one bullet, which entered the BACK of his
head. That is a proven FACT. And that proven fact is never going to
change, regardless of how many Josiah Thompsons and Mark Lanes are
born in the future who want to believe otherwise.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 26, 2011, 10:44:02 PM7/26/11

to

RE: THE FORWARD MOVEMENT OF JFK'S HEAD AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL SHOT:

To try and explain away JFK's obvious forward head movement between
Z312 and Z313 with the silly argument utilized by some CTers about how
EVERYBODY in the car is also moving forward at the same rate and speed
as Mr. Kennedy's head in those two frames is an argument that just
reeks of CTer desperation, IMO.

Nobody's head in that limo, other than JFK's head, is SNAPPING forward
suddenly between 312 and 313. And anyone who claims otherwise needs a
new pair of eyes when looking at this Z-Film gif clip:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?

Plus, ITEK Corp. in 1975 measured the forward movement of JFK's head
between Z312 and Z313. Was ITEK only measuring "motion blur" in those
frames (even though Z312 is positively one of the clearest frame in
the entire Zapruder home movie)? Nonsense. ITEK measured the MOVEMENT
of President Kennedy's head at the instant he was struck in the head
from behind.

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 27, 2011, 9:55:49 AM7/27/11

to

On Jul 26, 10:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> RE: THE FORWARD MOVEMENT OF JFK'S HEAD AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL SHOT:
>
> To try and explain away JFK's obvious forward head movement between
> Z312 and Z313 with the silly argument utilized by some CTers about how
> EVERYBODY in the car is also moving forward at the same rate and speed
> as Mr. Kennedy's head in those two frames is an argument that just
> reeks of CTer desperation, IMO.
>
> Nobody's head in that limo, other than JFK's head, is SNAPPING forward
> suddenly between 312 and 313. And anyone who claims otherwise needs a
> new pair of eyes when looking at this Z-Film gif clip:
>

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...

>
> Plus, ITEK Corp. in 1975 measured the forward movement of JFK's head
> between Z312 and Z313. Was ITEK only measuring "motion blur" in those
> frames (even though Z312 is positively one of the clearest frame in
> the entire Zapruder home movie)? Nonsense. ITEK measured the MOVEMENT
> of President Kennedy's head at the instant he was struck in the head
> from behind.

=============================
David,
An interesting clip there. Watching it closely it would appear
you're right that JFK's head moves forward a bit before it is blasted
back. It gets a bit more dicey when you look at the whole Z-film and
see that JFK may have been moving forward as a reaction to having just
been shot in the throat...:)

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 27, 2011, 10:41:12 AM7/27/11

to

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman also moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist." <<<

DVP SAID:

Was Roy Kellerman being hit in the head by a bullet at the EXACT
INSTANT his head moves forward between Z312 and Z313, Tony?

No. But JFK was.

Let me guess -- it was just a co-inky that JFK was being struck in the
head with a bullet at the precise 1/18th of a second when his head was
snapping forward--but the snap forward wasn't caused by the bullet
plowing into the back of his head (per Tony Marsh). No. We're supposed
to ignore the fact that a bullet is crashing into JFK at that EXACT
1/18th of a second.

Instead, per Marsh, it's best to believe that Greer's braking action
is causing the obvious forward SNAP of Kennedy's cranium, as Greer
slowed the vehicle from a whopping 9 or 10 MPH to--what?--6 or 7 MPH?

Yeah, right. That tremendous slowing from 9 to 6 MPH is bound to
rocket everybody forward, isn't it? (It's a wonder Jackie's pillbox
stayed on her head, what with that violent plunge forward.)

Is it truly possible that conspiracists will, indeed, ignore the
forward head snap...and/or pretend that it was caused by something
other than Oswald's bullet?

Amazingly, we have our answer from Anthony Marsh.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 27, 2011, 10:48:16 AM7/27/11

to

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "How do you explain the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone?" <<<

DAVID V.P. RESPONDED:

If it's an entry wound, Tony, then where's the exit wound for that
bullet?

And why is the left side of JFK's head totally undamaged and,
moreover, free of all bullet fragments?

Or do you think the shooter who caused that semi-circle in JFK's
frontal bone was shooting from directly in front of the President's
car (vs. being located off to the side, i.e., on the Grassy Knoll
someplace)?

I eagerly await your make-believe evidence as you attempt to answer my
above three inquiries.

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 27, 2011, 6:01:34 PM7/27/11

to

=======================================
Odd that you don't want to deal with the probable cause of the head
moving forward a bit being due to the wound in the throat...or in the
back if you like. When you watch the Z-film and see the head movement
IN CONTEXT you see JFK bending forward after the throat is affected,
and continuing to slowly move even further forward as part of the same
action. THEN he is blasted back by a bullet from the front.

Although I can understand if you need some time to concoct an
answer for that problem.

Chris

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 27, 2011, 6:21:40 PM7/27/11

to

GREAT fantasy!

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 8:32:09 AM7/29/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3145b418713672f5

I love Tony Marsh's answer about the exit wound. Per Anthony, the
entry and exit wounds in JFK's head did double duty on Nov. 22nd, even
though JFK was struck in the head by a high-powered rifle bullet. So,
the entry wound was also (essentially) the exit wound too. Right,
Tony?

But you DO think a HIGH-POWERED rifle bullet entered JFK's head, don't
you Tony?

And yet, at the end of the day, the left half of Kennedy's brain was
completely "intact":

"When viewed from the vertex, the left cerebral hemisphere [of
JFK's brain] is intact." -- From the Supplementary Autopsy Report
(CE391; Page 1)

Another question for Tony Marsh:

Why do you feel the need to supplement the existing official records,
such as CE391 and the testimony of Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck, and Dr.
Boswell, who ALL have always insisted that people like you are dead
wrong and they have always insisted that JFK was not hit by any
bullets from the front at all?

Are the theories of Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts (or any conspiracy
theorist anywhere in the world) really supposed to trump these
comments made by Dr. James Joseph Humes in 1967?:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

Please give me one really good reason to disbelieve Dr. Humes'
comments above.

Can you do that, Mr. Marsh?